Subject: [AVTCORE] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 00:43:39 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below a couple of non-blocking COMMENT points and nits.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 3.1 --
In "but overlapping reports MAY be sent (and need to be sent in cases" should
the "need" be a "MUST" ?

-- Section 5 --
In "then the sender SHOULD rapidly reduce", "sender" is somehow ambiguous: is
it the feedback transmitter or the media source sender ?

-- Section 6 --
The mandatory use of "*" appears strange to the non-SDP expert (like myself).
Why transmitting something that is always identical? What is the value ?

== NITS ==
-- Section 3.1 --
As some reader may also wonder like me, why the use of 'L' (at least I am
puzzled)? why not giving one word mnemonic to explain the logic behind this
choice ?

-- Section 7 --
Is there a typo in ""a=ecn-capaable-rtp:"" ?

it is probably redundant to again expand ECN.